Will Donald Trump’s old strategy of name-calling be enough to rewrite the rules again?
By: Sophia Stafford
In 2016, Donald Trump’s outlandish nicknames and rhetoric catapulted him from an unserious candidate to the President of the United States. His provocative demeanor and inflammatory phrases seized the attention of the national media. Whether voters were amazed or appalled, Trump cemented himself into all headlines and news feeds. His incredible rise in the American political sphere was largely due to his unprecedented behavior, but will his old strategies be enough to secure another win in 2024?
At first, Trump was viewed as a laughingstock of a candidate. ABC News host George Stephanopolous and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman laughed at the prospect of Trump leading the Republican presidential ticket. Yet, one-by-one, Trump wiped out his opponents: with chaos. He described Jeb Bush, the presumptive Republican nominee at the time, as ‘low energy Jeb’; he targeted Marco Rubio’s young age with the label ‘little Marco’; he depicted Ted Cruz as ‘Lyin Ted.’ These playground insults were an entirely unconventional strategy for politicians, and the media ate it up. Trump received unparalleled free news coverage, as outlets raced to condemn or celebrate his latest remarks. It is estimated that Trump earned $6 billion worth of free media. Of course, not all of this coverage was positive, but it put him on every American’s radar. This free publicity allowed him to sweep the final Republican primary in South Dakota, winning 67% of the vote.
Confirmed as the Republican candidate, Trump then turned his sights on Hillary Clinton. He called attention to her use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State and raised concerns about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was in office by calling her “Crooked Hillary.” The name was his magnum opus. In a poll conducted in April 2016, only one-third of Americans said they viewed her as honest and trustworthy. Trump also used Clinton’s appeal to women, one of her strongest rallying points, and spun her rhetoric as anti-male. His ability to spin public perception of Clinton as a dishonest and extreme candidate was key to his ability to secure the presidency.
Yet, Trump’s overwhelming presence was polarizing, and voters’ feelings toward him were often hyper-partisan. This gave Joe Biden a considerable advantage as a moderate candidate in 2020. Trump’s tried and true tactic—nicknames—did not pack the same punch it used to. Despite Trump’s constant attacks on “Sleepy Joe,” Biden consistently led national polls. Biden’s center-focused campaign and moderate stances were harder to criticize than Clinton’s. He regained 48% of the male vote for the Democratic Party, up from Clinton’s 41%, and 40% of the white male vote, up from Clinton’s 32%. Even among Trump’s main supporters, white working-class men, he earned 31% of their vote, up from 23% in 2016. In part because Trump failed to paint Biden in the same light he had his past opponents, Biden secured the presidency.
However, in 2024, Trump’s nickname of “Sleepy Joe” felt more fitting. Trump hardly had to point out Biden’s deteriorating cognitive abilities and physical strength. After Biden’s less-than-ideal debate performance against Trump, his chance of winning the election plunged from 36% to 22% on betting markets. 80% of voters believed that Biden was too old to run for a second term. “Sleepy Joe” was an accurate depiction of Biden, and if he continued to run, Trump would be able to beat him with ease.
As Biden stepped out of the race and Kamala Harris stepped up, it seems as though the Democratic Party just might have a chance. Trump’s main job, after Harris was nominated, was to define her in the most unflattering way possible. But his attempts don’t pack the same punch as his historic successes. Over the past few months, he has gone through several iterations of nicknames for her. He started with “Laffin Kamala” after conservatives made compilation videos of her laughing. When that did not receive the traction he wanted, he switched to “Lyin Kamala,” which he used at rallies in Charlotte, North Carolina, and on Truth Social the next day. A few days later, he tried out “Crazy Kamala,” on X. Then he experimented with “Kamabla,” “Crazy Kamabla,” and other mispronunciations of her name. Most recently, he used “Comrade Kamala” in response to her economic plan to paint her as a Communist ally. But his attempts to define Harris resemble someone blindly throwing darts at a target, just seeing which one will stick. He no longer has the shock value that he did eight years ago when his insults were revolutionary. Now, the surprise value has been lost.
Trump’s nicknames, which once astounded and energized his base, no longer carry the same weight as in 2016. As the novelty of his approach has worn off and he struggles to define Harris, it appears his once formidable strategy is failing. Time will tell the results of the election, but Trump may need more than name-calling to stay in the spotlight.
Leave a Reply